Al Qaeda absent from final Clinton report

Washington Times ^ | 4/06/04 | James G. Lakely

[kattracks]

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress

[Spruce]

Doh!

[Support Free Republic]

	Are you just along for the ride? Why not Donate to FR and get a real lift and help make a difference? Mail a check to FreeRepublic , LLC PO BOX 9771 FRESNO, CA 93794 or you can use PayPal at Jimrob@psnw.com
SUPPORT FREE REPUBLIC

[ScaniaBoy]

Great!

It may be that the 911 commission has caused troubles for Bush's reelection campaign, (but he will prevail) but it has certainly brought the legacy of Clinton out into the open.

Soon even the main-stream media will have to connect the dots between the Lewinsky affair and the Clinton's inept handling of the terrorist threat.

ScaniaBoy

[ScaniaBoy]

Maybe "dots" should be "drops"!

[MamaLucci]

But the Clinton administration's final national security document, written while Mr. Clarke was a high-level national security adviser, never mentions al Qaeda.

"Clarke was on the job as terrorism czar at that point," said a senior Bush administration official who spoke on the condition of anonymity. "He played a significant role. His concerns should have been well-known."

Clarke's book=typical clintonian pre-emptive CYA.
A tall order, given the size of he and BJ's exposed rear end's.

[EGPWS]

The final policy paper on national security that President Clinton submitted to Congress — 45,000 words long — makes no mention of al Qaeda and refers to Osama bin Laden by name just four times.

That's because he was too busy filling in the new POTUS as to what the concerning world affairs were in respect to our national security (as per his crones in his administration) in private meetings, however Dubya was too busy trying to get his computer network back on line by placing an order for numerous missing keys on the computers that turned up missing, and awaiting catering service as to maintain sustenance in a house without china or silverware!

[WOSG]

"Clarke's book=typical clintonian pre-emptive CYA.
A tall order, given the size of he and BJ's exposed rear end's."

It helps to have SeeBS on your side in these rear-covering operations.

Wonderful misdirection ... to turn the Clinton lack-of-action into a Bush administration failing!

[Mo1]

Ping a ling

[america-rules]

God Clinton won't go away !

[river rat]

Osama bin Laden is the turd that will be permanently hung around Clinton's neck - as his legacy...

Clinton will not avoid being found guilty of dereliction of duty as President...

Ignored the defense of the Nation.
Sold out to the Chinese - at our endangerment.
Kissed Arafat's filthy murderous ass for 8 years.
Betrayed our military is Somalia.
Allowed the murder of 800,000 of "his people" in Africa.
Supported Islamic militants in Kosovo -- who are now conducting ethnic cleansing of Serbs.
Failed his oath of office...
Lied under oath...
Soiled the Oval Office carpets and fixtures...
etc, etc, etc......

Thank you Democrats -- two Democrat feckless imbeciles in less than 25 years... Carter, then Clinton... I fear the nation couldn't survive another of these jerks.

Semper Fi

[montag813]

It may be that the 911 commission has caused troubles for Bush's reelection campaign, (but he will prevail) but it has certainly brought the legacy of Clinton out into the open.

That is why they should enjoy the brief damage they have inflicted upon President Bush. The REAL damage will fatally injure Hillary's 2008 prospects.

[yonif]

I personally think we all should stop with the blame game, because it isn't going to make us any safer for the next terror attack which is sure to come. I do recognize that past administrations before Bush failed to understand the brewing storm, starting with Carter. But it really isn't going to help us. We should find out what areas are in need of increased security. For one, public transportation security in America is a joke, and so is security in public places such as malls, campuses, movie theaters, and supermarkets.

[golforacle]

My big question is where was the mainstream media on this story? Where was Washington Post? Another evidence of liberal bias? Do we need to rely on Fox and Wash Times to dig up all the dirt on Clarke?

I love this line: "The document is publicly available, though no U.S. media outlets have examined it in the context of Mr. Clarke's testimony and new book."

[kattracks]

I personally think we all should stop with the blame game, because it isn't going to make us any safer for the next terror attack which is sure to come.

The blame game was started to hurt President's Bush's chances for reelection. If this ploy works our safety will be in the hands of Kerry and the Dims.

We should find out what areas are in need of increased security.

Which was supposed to be the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, that was superseded by Democrat partisan politics.

[yonif]

The blame game was started to hurt President's Bush's chances for reelection. If this ploy works our safety will be in the hands of Kerry and the Dims.

I agree. I think we should make this clear, and not look for ways to go back and blame Clinton (who of course shares a lot blame for having the post for 8 years). But there is no point to that. We should just say we will not take part in this blame game, because it ain't going to make us safer.

Which was supposed to be the purpose of the 9/11 Commission. Unfortunately, that was superseded by Democrat partisan politics.

Which is the sad part. We will all pay for that in time...again

[woofie]

I was Googling myself trying to find out how often the Clinton administration talked about Bin Laden and Al Qaeda in its 8 years....I am a poor googler ...Can anyone else find this info?

[FlyVet]

45,000 words. Dang, that's almost as long as his speeches.

[PhiKapMom]

Maybe you can stop the blame game, but those of us who lived through Clinton will NEVER let him off the hook for putting us in a weakened position on defense and intelligence. He could have had Bin Laden and turned him down. He does not get a pass with this Republican Conservative and never will. Clinton is slime!

[kayak]

To find out just how biased everyone has been about Clarke's book, check out this article ... by someone who seems to have read the whole book rather than just selected parts of it.

Who Lost Osama? : Richard Clarke is far tougher on the Clinton failures than advertised.

"THIS IS THE STORY, from my perspective, of how al Qaeda developed and attacked the United States on September 11," Richard Clarke begins Against All Enemies: Inside America's War on Terror, his new book that has been widely ballyhooed as the bomb that will destroy President Bush's reelection campaign.

In fact, only in his preface and the book's final sixty-five pages does Clarke's partisanship boil over into the invective, vitriol, and spite that have transformed this career national-security hawk into the anti-Bush Democrats' American Idol. The rest of the book, Clarke's unwitting indictment of the Clinton administration's terrorism policy, ought to make the whole of the nation vote for four more years of Bush.